Monday, 18 October 2010

The Usama Dakdok Scandal on ABN SAT

For all the Usama Dakdok related posts please see: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Usama%20Dakdok Update on Usama Dakdok of The Straight Way Ministry, click: More Deception from Usama Dakdok of The Straight Way Ministry



Meet Pastor Usama Kamel Dakdok and his Hatred

Never heard of him? Me too, till I saw him drop a few clangers on Samar Gorial’s show on ABNSat . This “Christian” missionary worked himself into a frenzy of hatred; a frenzy which apparently culminated into Usama Dakdok spouting a foul word*. Yes, we bring you ANOTHER scandal from an ABN show. Why do some fundamentalist Christians keep us so busy with their debauched  and money-hungry ways?

Who is Usama Dakdok?

He is from Egyptian stock and functions out of “thestraightway” ministry. His claim to fame is his “translation” of the Quran - which he is selling on his site for a whopping £24.95 dollars. For those in the know concerning classical Arabic; Usama Dakdok is far from qualified to translate such a text. I guess his lack of expertise and study has not stopped him from entering such an enterprise; I wonder if it as financially lucrative as he first imagined.

If you have bought his translation, which he styles as the only “true” translation then you have well and truly been duped. Dakdok does not fit ANY of Von Denffer’s educational requirements for translating the Quran in English.

Here is Usama Dakdok Demonstrating his Ineptness via Video (warning bad language):




The Synopsis of Usama Dakdok’s address to Shadeed Lewis on ABN’s “Jihad Exposed”

I know the show seems to have a bizarre title but let’s leave that for now and concentrate on the foul mouth of Usama Dakdok. On the show he is confronted by a caller (MDI’s Shadeed Lewis) and Dakdok just goes off the handle.

Was Usama Dakdok possessed?

Really? Have a look at the footage yourself. He starts calling all Muslims deceivers, loses his composure and is generally ranting and raving whilst insulting Islam and Muslims.

Usama Dakdok’s bigotry, insults and bad language*

Dakdok suggests, in his shaky English, all Muslims following the Quran are Jihadists and ALL Muslims are demons, he calls Allah (God) and the Prophet deceivers.

In the end it appears as though Dakdok called Lewis an “a**” whilst strangling his expression (LATER CLARIFIED AS "ASK" BY DAKDOK, SEE BELOW). The other guest (Anjem Choudry) on the show accuses Usama Dakdok of “barking like a dog”; such was Dakdok’s crazed manner!

The big evangelical con

Does Usama Dakdok really want to be taken seriously as a translator? Nobody in the academic community considers him to be credible and those in the lay community have realised the man seems to have some real issues which point him out to be the charlatan the academic community consider him to be.

*Usama Dakdok contacted me, on the bad language issue he said:
"You have accused me of speaking foul language and I assure you that I never have or never will use any foul language. If you listen carefully to the video you posted you will hear that the word I said was "ask" not "a**" as you claimed." 

NOTE: I believe Usama Dakdok's explanation as I received a comment from an individual claiming Dakdok said "let's ask" and not "this ask", his accent is pretty heavy at times. Nevertheless, he did not use bad language. Thus we can disregard that particular critique.

I do notice  he refrained from commenting on the rest of the outburst; he called all Muslims "demons" and went on a general insult spree!

My thanking the commenter:
Ahh yes...it makes sense now. If the "this" is "lets" then it makes sense. I have listened to it a few times to check for your explanation and it seems to hold water. For that reason I will private the video; and reupload an edited one.
I really appreciate your fairness. May Allah reward you with more good
Peace

More information on Usama Dakdok:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Usama%20Dakdok

More info on ABN:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/ABN%20Sat

Learn about Islam:
http://ediscoverislam.com/

]

Tags: jihad exposed and genocide, abnsat dakdok, translation of quran, money, dollars, straight way ministries, Egyptian colloquial Arabic, fraud, cash, fundamentalist misinformation, debate, manu, shaded lewis, anjem choudry, islam4uk, Aramaic broadcasting network, arab Christian deceiving Americans, deception, donate, abnsat.com

82 comments:

sam1528 said...

'Infidel' - interesting word.

Origin of the word 'infidel' is from the 15th century , a term used by the christians describing muslims.

'..mid-15c. (adj., n.), from M.Fr. infidèle, from L. infidelis "unfaithful," later "unbelieving," from in- "not" + fidelis "faithful" (see fidelity). In 15c. "a non-Christian" (especially a Saracen..' (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=infidel&searchmode=none)

Ibn said...

That was some funny stuff!

Ibn said...

This is a video of Jack Black acting as a right wing Christian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR3C0S7yiv8&feature=player_embedded

Yahya Snow said...

@Sam,

Very interesting and ironic

Usama, take note.

Anonymous said...

I notice they had Anjem Chaudry on the show as well. This guy has 200 followers in the UK and he is paraded (even in the UK media) as a representative of Muslims.

Great blog btw, stumbled on it a couple of days ago and i check regularly for updates

Anonymous said...

Quite right! I think, what is it excellent idea.

The Fat Man said...

To the Muslims.

Lets see Islamic Doctrine places non muslim in a second class of citizen ship. "DHIMITUDE"

Islam prevents them from building new churches, repairing old churches, makes them dress a certin way, dhimi's must put up Muslim Travelers for three days in their churches providing food and bording etc... Non Muslims can NOT serve in the Military to defend their country. A duty that is honored by patriots, something to be desired not frowned on.

If non Muslims are allowed into the military they are not to advance to a position of authority over Muslims. That sounds like apartide and segregation.

So a non Muslim attempts to point that out and he is labeled the a BIGOT.

OH PLEASE.

The Fat Man said...

1moremuslim said in a previous post...

"The question is too silly to be answered. God did not intend to destroy Sin. The purpose of the Flood is to destroy the Bad people and to save the righteous one Noah and his followers. Why Sin still exists? Because man was created susceptible for sins, Some men overcome their desires, they become righteous, others Chose to follow their desires they become sinful."

WOW, "Man was created susceptible to sin" I'm sorry I thought that Muslims didn't believe in some form of "Original Sin"

But i want to focus on "The purpose of the Flood is to destroy the Bad people and to save the righteous one Noah and his followers." and ... " Some men overcome their desires, they become righteous, others Chose to follow their desires they become sinful."

So Islamic doctrine is that man can overcome his sinful desires and become righteous. Well the question then is what do the Righteous need to be saved from? If I can by my own will over come the desire to sin then why do I need God?

Second how did Noah over come his sinful desire, are you saying that Noah was absolutely perfect. If this is the case then I ask you are you absolutely perfect?

Ibn said...

FatDog: Islam prevents them from building new churches, repairing old churches, makes them dress a certin way, dhimi's must put up Muslim Travelers for three days in their churches providing food and bording etc...

Fatman treats Islam as a monolith which is the hallmark of Islamophobia and then in an ironic fashion makes the following claim

"So a non Muslim attempts to point that out and he is labeled the a BIGOT. "

Lol! Bigotry and Irony at its best!

As Samira Fayyad writes, "...expressions like, 'Islam says', 'Islam wants'....are in a sense misleading....What is Islam?....It is a mental and emotional state, not an entity that dictates........"

The Fat Man said...

Ibn (what are you the son of) said...

"Fatman treats Islam as a monolith which is the hallmark of Islamophobia and then in an ironic fashion makes the following claim"

WOW, are you saying there are different "Denomonations of Islam" there is actually different ISLAM depending on how you feel. LOL

I thought there was only one ISLAM. Well you learn somethign everyday.

So the denomonation of Islam that you follow. Does it believe in the Pact of Umar, does it believe in Ibn Kathir's commentary on surah 9-29 does it believe on the Shaffi school of Islamic Jursiprudance. Tell me what version of Islam do you practice?

Now the real question, should I fear the flavor, version, denomonation of Islam that does believe to treat non Muslims in the way described?

Ibn said...

Fatman: Now the real question, SHOULD I FEAR

Fatman's an Islamophobe all right.

1moremuslim said...

The Fat Man:

When a theory is so contradicted by Experience, we have to conclude that the theory is WRONG!

Christians Churches never ceases to exist in the Muslim world, they are well maintained , constantly repaired and taken care of. Are you saying that the Churches in the ME never got maintenance for 14 centuries? Are you saying the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem has never been repaired?

About The issue of Sin , you have been refuted, you can't explain away that the Christian God is a total failure, he wants perfection, but he failed in creating what he wanted, and his Perfect Adam turned out to be not so perfect, and he felt sorry and regretful.
I advise you to read the Quran, your questions will be answered by themselves.

The Fat Man said...

Ibn

You didn't answer the question sir. Assuming you are correct and that there are many shades of Islam, and that it is more of a feeling then a political religious entity.

Then tell me, should I as a Kuffar fear those that practice the Islam of Umar, of Ibn Kathir, of the Shaffi and Haniffi school of Islamic jurisprudence?

Ibn said...

Fat: Then tell me, should I as a Kuffar fear those that practice the Islam of Umar, of Ibn Kathir, of the Shaffi and Haniffi school of Islamic jurisprudence?

Loaded question.

The Fat Man said...

1moremuslim said...

Christians Churches never ceases to exist in the Muslim world, they are well maintained , constantly repaired and taken care of.

Really, can you name one church just one in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

What about the the Churches that were taken over during the Muslim Jihad. The Haggi of Sophia in CONSTANTINOPLE comes to mind.

I guess turning a church into a mosq and then after centuries turning into a Museum justifies your statement of "well maintained"

Let's not forget the Copts in Egypt. You know the Copts, the Egyptian Christians that every Muslim hates with a passion.

They have to wait years to get a permit to repair a leaky roof. Don't make me make you look a fool by denying it. I will have no problem getting the UN sources that speaks of the discrimination done to the Copts.

The Church of the Nativity was maintained because it brought tourists and money. Also up until the rebirth of the Islamic conquest in the 1990's Bethlehem was overwhelming Christian. That is not the case now. We are already seeing signs of persecution when it comes to that church.

Now onto your other nonsensical accusation. First notice you had no answers to my questions only your accusation that God failed.

So i will have to address that first. God created Man "in his own image" as his last act of creation. After he had completed this act he looked at all he had created and called it "VERY GOOD"

Man then falls, God did not cause him to Fall it was man being deceived into disobeying God that caused him to fall. Throwing the world into chaos and sin.

Adam then has children the bible says "in his own likeness, in his own image". So all though man was created in the Image of God originally we are also created in the Image of FALLEN MAN

But God through his Grace, Judgment and Providence he SAVES perfectly those he chooses to Save.

It is for this purpose that we wicked sinners need a savior. If we could be righteous on our own then we would have no need to be saved. If we could do it all on our own then we would have no need for a GOD.

So tell me Ibn how was Noah Righteous what did he do to separate himself from the other images and likeness of fallen man?

The Fat Man said...

1moremuslim

One more thing, Noah did not save man, GOD Saved NOAH.

The Fat Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Fat Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Fat Man said...

Ibn (son of ????) said

"Loaded question."

So no answer just another accusation. Ok go back to your flavor of Islam that is "Emotional". I hope it feels good.

You know I often feel better after a bowl movement. Maybe that is Islam. It all depends on how you feel. The Jihadi's are constipated, and peafull hippy Muslims like yourself eat a lot of fiber.

Enjoy

1moremuslim said...

To The Fat Man:

You know absolutely nothing about Christians in the Muslim world. In Egypt, they have their own judicial system. What permits are you talking about? They have their own budget they do whatever they want with their churches. They are even piling weapons in their churches. The Government cannot open his mouth against Copts. Muslims are persecuted in their land under the dictator regimes.

Your comment about the nativity church hit a new low. Jerusalem was under Islamic rule for 14 centuries. The khalifah refused to perform prayer in the Church so that it remains Christian.

"we are also created in the Image of FALLEN MAN

There you have it! God cannot stand fallen man yet he created us in the image of fallen man. Thus, God cannot create what he wants. Clean up the mess in your theology first.

How Noah became righteous? The same way that made Abel righteous : Doing what is right. Read the story of Cain and Abel and tell us why God accepted the offering of Abel not that of Cain. Don't give me your opinion , Give me what the Bible says.

sam1528 said...

thefatman ,

From you ;
'..Islam prevents them from building new churches, repairing old churches, makes them dress a certin way, dhimi's must put up Muslim Travelers for three days in their churches providing food and bording etc...'

This is identical to 'the pact of Umar(ra)'. Sadly for you 'the pact of Umar(ra) has been proven to be a forgery. Even western scholars admit that the document was a forgery
(1) Umar is attributed with the authorship of the “Covenant of Umar” or the “Pact of Umar”…The first western research done on the “Covenant of Umar” was initiated by T.W. Arnold in The Preaching of Islam, and A.S. Tritton in “Islam and the Protected Religions.” They both asserted that the “Covenant” was an apocryphal document
(2) Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross: Jews in the Middle Ages, 55 '..No text of the document can be dated earlier than the tenth or eleventh century..'
(http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/#F11)

This happens when you learn Islam from hucksters like robert spencer , sam shamoun , david wood , wood's sidekick the ahmadi turned christian via wet dreams 'nolan quasimondo' or something - I cannot recall his name.

Read the link provided. Do comment on the church doctrine of 'perpetual servitude'.

The Fat Man said...

1moremuslims said...

"In Egypt, they have their own judicial system. What permits are you talking about? They have their own budget they do whatever they want with their churches."

Well I warned you.

First your statement "Their own judicial system" Interesting, that's is called Apartide. Second your statement "they have there own budget". What good is having a budget if you can not use it.

So some links. Here is a UN Report dealing with discrimination of Copts when it comes to marriage.

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,EGY,,469cd6b614,0.html

The next link is a petition to the UN by Copts about this persecution.

http://www.petitiononline.com/coptic/petition.html

Search in Google "UN report coptic Christian Churches" and you will find link after link after link.

1moremuslim do not try to white wash over the persectution of my Christian brothers by saying they live under apartide and segregation.

I also noticed you had no answer for the name of any church in Saudi Arabia?

The Fat Man said...

Sam1528

So then Ibn Kahtir was wrong on his comentery on Surah 9:29 when he quotes from it. The Shaffi and Hannif school of Islamic Jurisprudance are wrong when they site the pact of Umar?

Ibn said...

FatBull: First your statement "Their own judicial system" Interesting, that's is called Apartide.

Having a judicial system of their own is apartheid? Then I guess distinguishing between kosher and non-kosher food is also apartheid.

sam1528 said...

thefatman ,

** Any Bros having more info on this 'Pact of Umar(ra)' , pls contribute **

Its very clear , you did not read the contents of the link that was provided. From you '..then Ibn Kahtir was wrong on his comentery on Surah 9:29..'

Ok , lets go to ibn kathir (http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2566&Itemid=64)
(1) '..This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. WE MADE A CONDITION ON OURSELVES..'
(2) '..When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim..'

You have a problem here. The conditions you so detested were
made up , requested and imposed by the christians for themselves. Caliph Umar(ra) did NOT demand such conditions.

On the other hand , Tarikh At-Tabari, Vol. III, p. 609, ed. Dar al-Ma’arif, Egypt ;
'..This is the protection which the servant of Allah, Umar ibn Al Khattab, the commander of the faithful extends to them (non-Muslims): ‘The safeguarding of their lives, property, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches are not to be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will not be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be harmed. None of the Jews will live with them in Illiya’ (Jersusalem)..'
(from Bro Bassam Zawadi ; http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/archive/index.php/t-2115.html)

One will have to wonder
(i) on one hand we have a set of harsh conditions imposed by the christians on themselves which has been labelled 'The Pact of Umar(ra)'(tafsir ibn kathir)
(ii) on the other hand an edict from Caliph Umar(ra) which provides total protection for the christians also labelled 'The Pact of Umar(ra)'(Tarikh At-Tabari)

Enter Professor Mark Cohen (weblink from my previous post);
'..As Professor Mark R. Cohen and other historians point out, the document seems to have been forged long after the early classical period of Islam, and certainly only came to prominence much after that; it was the work of latter day Muslims that found its way into the jurisprudential texts. This explains why the early classical period of Islam was characterized by a state of relative tolerance towards dhimmis. Umar ibn al-Khattab himself was known to be considerably mild with unbelievers..'

You pride yourself with 'historical method'. Not very historical are you?

Either way I am ok. If you persist with the believe that the 'Pact of Umar(ra) quoted by Ibn Kathir is the real deal , hey no issues with me. You christians made up , demanded and imposed such conditions upon yourselves. Why do you complain?

I still want you to comment on the 'church doctrine of perpetual servitude'.

sam1528 said...

thefatman ,

** Any Bros having more info on this 'Pact of Umar(ra)' , pls contribute **

Its very clear , you did not read the contents of the link that was provided. From you '..then Ibn Kahtir was wrong on his comentery on Surah 9:29..'

Ok , lets go to ibn kathir (http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2566&Itemid=64)
(1) '..This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. WE MADE A CONDITION ON OURSELVES..'
(2) '..When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim..'

You have a problem here. The conditions you so detested were
made up , requested and imposed by the christians for themselves. Caliph Umar(ra) did NOT demand such conditions.

On the other hand , Tarikh At-Tabari, Vol. III, p. 609, ed. Dar al-Ma’arif, Egypt ;
'..This is the protection which the servant of Allah, Umar ibn Al Khattab, the commander of the faithful extends to them (non-Muslims): ‘The safeguarding of their lives, property, churches, crosses, and of their entire community. Their churches are not to be occupied, demolished, or damaged, nor are their crosses or anything belonging to them to be touched. They will not be forced to abandon their religion, nor will they be harmed. None of the Jews will live with them in Illiya’ (Jersusalem)..'
(from Bro Bassam Zawadi ; http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/archive/index.php/t-2115.html)

part 1 of 2

sam1528 said...

Part 2 of 2


One will have to wonder
(i) on one hand we have a set of harsh conditions imposed by the christians on themselves which has been labelled 'The Pact of Umar(ra)'(tafsir ibn kathir)
(ii) on the other hand an edict from Caliph Umar(ra) which provides total protection for the christians also labelled 'The Pact of Umar(ra)'(Tarikh At-Tabari)

Enter Professor Mark Cohen (weblink from my previous post);
'..As Professor Mark R. Cohen and other historians point out, the document seems to have been forged long after the early classical period of Islam, and certainly only came to prominence much after that; it was the work of latter day Muslims that found its way into the jurisprudential texts. This explains why the early classical period of Islam was characterized by a state of relative tolerance towards dhimmis. Umar ibn al-Khattab himself was known to be considerably mild with unbelievers..'

You pride yourself with 'historical method'. Not very historical are you?

Either way I am ok. If you persist with the believe that the 'Pact of Umar(ra) quoted by Ibn Kathir is the real deal , hey no issues with me. You christians made up , demanded and imposed such conditions upon yourselves. Why do you complain?

I still want you to comment on the 'church doctrine of perpetual servitude'.

The Fat Man said...

IBN said...

"Having a judicial system of their own is apartheid? Then I guess distinguishing between kosher and non-kosher food is also apartheid."

Wow Ibn your comparing apples to PORK. Having a separate judicial system with in a government is a separation it is Apartide. It is not the same as having Kosher dietiery laws.

Being discriminated against in advancement with in the Military, as well as in Government office is Segregation and APARTIDE, nothing to do with whether you put cheese on a hamburger or not.

IBN I am still waiting for the name of any Church in KSA? What about a Jewish Temple?

No comment on the UN report that Coptic men are being discriminated against when it comes to Marriage and Divorce. No comment on the UN petition listing abuse after abuse by not only the Muslim population but by the government.

The only thing from you is to compare the segregation, discrimination and apartide of my Christian Brothers to putting cheese on a hamburger.

The Fat Man said...

Sam1528

First you say that the pact of Umar is made up, now you say it is something the Christians placed on themselves.

In what universe does that even make sense?

First let's deal with what Ibn Kathir says.

"(and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,

"(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) "

The Fat Man said...

Sam1528 IBN KATHIR CONT

This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, DEMANDED his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices [with prayer] at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.' When I gave this document to `Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim. These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.'''

Ibn Kathir

The Fat Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Fat Man said...

Sam1528 Now lets go to what the Shaffi school of Islamic Jurisprudance says on the treatment of Dihimi's.

From The Reliance on the Travelor book O11.5

(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

(3) are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

(4) must keep to the side of the street;
(5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house,
it is not razed;
(6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite
the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
(7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

So let's review. I asked the question which was never answered

" should I fear the flavor, version, denomonation of Islam that does believe to treat non Muslims in the way described?"

The only response was one of denial, "The pact of Umar is a well known forgery" LOL

Then once it is pointed out that Ibn Kathir sites it and quotes from it the response now changes to "You have a problem here. The conditions you so detested were made up , requested and imposed by the christians for themselves."

So we go from it being a fake a forgery to Christians requesting to be treated like this. LOL

Also I have heard from IBN that Islam is not a Mononlith and that there are many versions of Islam based on your "Feelings"

That Christians living under Apartide in Egypt is the same as Jewish Kosher laws...

I think that somes up the nonsense I have heard so far.

So my Original Question stands.

Should I fear the Islam that teaches what Ibn Kathir and the Shaffi school of islamic thought teach on the treatment of KUFFAR?

But now I have another question I would liked answered as well.

"Would you Muslims living in the west want to live under such conditions?

Ibn said...

Fat: Wow Ibn your comparing apples to PORK. Having a separate judicial system with in a government is a separation it is Apartide.

First, get the spelling right, it is "apartheid", not apartide. Second, having a separate judicial system which is run by non-Muslims by their own elected officials so that their affairs are carried out according to their own religious law is apartheid according to whom exactly? Your girlfriend David Wood?

The Fat Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Fat Man said...

One more thing, the punishment on Christains for breaking any of these laws according to the Shaffi Schooll of islamic thought is the same treating prisoners of war.

If it is a woman who is married her marriage is disolved, and she is sold into slavery.

If it is a man "decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or
ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy." (Reliance on the Traveler Book O9.14, O9.13, O11.9, and O11.11)

So I can be Killed, Sold into slavery or ransomed off in exchange for a Muslim Prisoner of war.

Muslims do you think that is fair treatment for breaking any of the "Dihimitude laws"?

The Fat Man said...

Ibn

Thanks for correcting my spelling. It was really frustrating to see it underlined in red and no spelling suggestions from google chrome.

So this is all you have. You have deteriorated to cheep un creative insults.

But here is the definition from Dictionary.com

1.
a rigid policy of segregation of the nonwhite population.
2.
any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.

So having a separate judicial system is a form of religious APARTHEID

1moremuslim said...

The Fat Man:

" "Their own judicial system" Interesting, that's is called Apartide

First advise to you; learn how to spell Apartheid.
Second, go and learn the meaning of it.
So according to you, Muslims in UK asked "Apartheid" (Sharia) to be applied to them.

I can show you hundreds of reports showing Muslims oppressed in Egypt. Muslims activists are Jailed on a daily Basis for no reason. The complaint of Copts is baseless, whenever they have a girl who converts to Islam, they blame the Muslims for abducting her. Copts just want to hide their shame.

As for marriage, you are amazingly misinformed, The Coptic courts denies divorce to their followers, because Jesus says so. Unlike you, They follow their NT quite literally. So when a Coptic woman is mistreated by his coptic husband, the Church is going to do nothing. There have to be adultery for divorce

And yes, there are plenty of Churches and synagogues in Arabia. Saudi Arabia however, was created by UK, and unconditionally supported by US. So if you want to complain, go to your president. I hate the Saudi Government more than you do.

Ibn said...

According to FatMan, if Jews in a Muslim majority country wish to abide by the dictates of a Rabbinic court instead of a Shariah court, they are imposing apartheid on themselves. Wood has taught you well, FatMan!

WomanForTruth101 said...

//So the denomonation of Islam that you follow. Does it believe in the Pact of Umar//

LOL the Pact of Umar? Are Christians still hanging around that? Geez whatever they feed you at answering muslims but be doses of conservatism. I've noticed Rob Spencer also tries to use this pact to get attention. What a loser.
Fatman, scholar's have already conlcluded that this was unreliable. Abu-Munshar writes:

"The humiliating conditions enumerated in the so-called “Pact of Umar” are utterly foreign to the mentality, thoughts and practices of this caliph…The deficiencies [in the textual integrity] support the contention that Umar was not the originator of the document. In addition to the remarkable care and concern displayed in Umar’s attitute to dhimmis confirms the rejection of the so-called Pact of Umar as attributable to Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab. The Pact of Umar was not the work of Umar Ibn al-Khattab."

The Fat Man said...

The Level of deception, and denial is large for words.

So now there are churches in KSA, a country that explicitly outlaws churches and other houses of worship.

Sam1528 Ok name me one church, in Riyadh, or Jedha. Can you give me it's address and phone number?

Ibn again you compare pork, and cheese on a hamburger to segregation and apartheid. Living by kosher dietery laws is not the same as having a separate judicial system FORCED ON YOU. The COPTS have virtualy no legal recourse against the Islamic oppression.
Can a Copt sue a Muslim in Coptic court?

Foul Mouthed Womanoftruth.

We have already gotten passed the whole "Pact of Umar" is false lie. We have now moved to the "Pact of Umar... was requested and imposed by the christians for themselves."

I know it might be hard for you being a Muslima and all. But do try to keep up with the conversation. Also I noticed Woman of truth you did not read my citation of Ibn Kathir commentery or The Shaffi school of Islamic Jurisprudence. Had you done that you would not have vomited the same denial that has already been refuted.

Again Muslims still waiting for answer to my questions.

Let me repeat them.

Should I fear the Islam that teaches what Ibn Kathir and the Shaffi school of islamic thought teach on the treatment of KUFFAR?

Would you Muslims living in the west want to live under such conditions?

And finally

So I can be Killed, Sold into slavery or ransomed off in exchange for a Muslim Prisoner of war.

Muslims do you think that is fair treatment for breaking any of the "Dihimitude laws"?

.

The Fat Man said...

Muslims here is a interesting observation. This thread started becasue Usama Dakdok was called a bigot.

Well here are some of the responses about Christians living under Islamic Oppression and Occupation.

"The pact of Umar was imposed by Christians on themselves."

"The Copts have there own Judicial system"

Now lets compare that to some Bigoted statements done in US history.

Pro Slaver "The Negro's want to be slaves they are happy being slaves. If they weren't happy then why are they singing all the time"

Pro Segregationist "We take care of our Negro's in the south, they have their OWN SCHOOLS, water fountains, parks, bathrooms, doctors... their happy to ride in the back of the BUSS. So what is the big deal. This is just a bunch of outsiders stirring up trouble"

So Muslims thanks for proving how bigoted you really are.

The Fat Man said...

Ibn and the other Muslims.

One more thing, so you defend what Egypt does to its coptic minority. But Egypt doesnt practice Sharia law. So you are defending what exactly? :)

Ibn said...

Fat: Ibn again you compare pork, and cheese on a hamburger to segregation and apartheid. Living by kosher dietery laws is not the same as having a separate judicial system FORCED ON YOU.

You are attacking a straw man, my fat frienemy! When did I say that living by kosher dietary laws is the same as having a forcible imposition of a separate judiciary?

WomanForTruth101 said...

fatman, if you read my post about the 3 letters double-u, tee and eff, you'd realise what you had in mind was not my intention. I know it might be hard for you being a Christianofascist and all.

Okay so answer me this, even though the Pact of Umar has been refuted by scholars, do you believe it's reliable?

The Fat Man said...

WomanofTruth I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU.

Now on to your other nonsense.
You said...

"Okay so answer me this, even though the Pact of Umar has been refuted by scholars, do you believe it's reliable?"

First you really need to catch up on the conversation, Sam1528 has changed his argument that the Pact of Umar was created by Christians it was something that they imposed on themselves.

Now what scholars have refuted the Pact of Umar? Western Oriental Scholars? So you believe western oriental scholars over the scholars of Islam. Like Ibn Kathir, or the Shaffi school of Islamic Jurisprudence?

ABC 20/20 Did a special on Islam, they said that Muslim men wont get 72 virgins in paradise. Instead it is 72 Raisins. So do you believe these westerners too, over Islamic Scholars?

It really must be hard, to be in your position. To defend what is obviously indefensible.

This thread is a classic example of how Muslim argumentation goes.

The first phase is total denial. To support this denial Muslims will appeal to any authority, atheist, secular, what ever even if it refutes there own scholars. This is he phase you are still in.

The second phase is to put the blame on someone else like the Christians who singed the Pact of Umar. This is the phase that Sam1528 is in.

The Third Phase is to attack a straw man, usually combining elements of the first two phases. This is the phase that IBN is in.

But either way none of this answers my questions. Maybe you can answer them foul mouth and all.

Should I fear the Islam that teaches what Ibn Kathir and the Shaffi school of islamic thought teach on the treatment of KUFFAR?

Would you Muslims living in the west want to live under such conditions?

And finally

So I can be Killed, Sold into slavery or ransomed off in exchange for a Muslim Prisoner of war.

Muslims do you think that is fair treatment for breaking any of the "Dihimitude laws"?

Yahya Snow said...

@FatMan,

What if I told you, your friend Sam has been a bad boy on PalTalk again?

Someody emailed me some debauched audio of Sam on PalTalk :(

Why does Sam want us to believe he is "full" of the Holy Spirit yet he cannot put together a spiel which is not littered with shocking insult?


The same could be siad about coherent argumentation

Peace

Inviting all to Islam

The Fat Man said...

Yahya Snow

So I see your in Phase 3, what does Sam Shamoun have to do with anything in this thread?

The Fat Man said...

BTW Muslims on Palalk are now appealing to George W Bush to prove that Islam is a religion of Peace lol

WomanForTruth101 said...

"WomanofTruth I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU."

I understand the denial Christians are born with. Many Christians reject, ignore and outright dismiss arguments of all sort.

"First you really need to catch up on the conversation, Sam1528 has changed his argument that the Pact of Umar was created by Christians it was something that they imposed on themselves.

Now what scholars have refuted the Pact of Umar? Western Oriental Scholars? So you believe western oriental scholars over the scholars of Islam. Like Ibn Kathir, or the Shaffi school of Islamic Jurisprudence?"

From reading Sam's comments it seems he's just playing with you. You take everything so seriously, calm down a bit. If you knew a thing or two, you WOULD know the Pact is viewed as fabrications and unreliable material.

Western oriental scholars? No, I know however those Christian scholars and non-scholars get Islam wrong all the time, even something as little as '72 raisins'. If you read my comment I provided you with a scholar's view:

"The humiliating conditions enumerated in the so-called “Pact of Umar” are utterly foreign to the mentality, thoughts and practices of this caliph…The deficiencies [in the textual integrity] support the contention that Umar was not the originator of the document. In addition to the remarkable care and concern displayed in Umar’s attitute to dhimmis confirms the rejection of the so-called Pact of Umar as attributable to Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab. The Pact of Umar was not the work of Umar Ibn al-Khattab."

There is alot more info here: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/03/the-protocols-of-the-elders-of-mecca-the-final-word-on-the-pact-of-umar/

The Fat Man said...

WOMANOFTRUTH

So then Ibn Kathir is wrong? Shaffi is WRONG?

The Fat Man said...

WomanofTruth

Who is this scholar Abu-Munshar? I googled the name and only got Financial Consultants lol.

So who is this Scholar?

sam1528 said...

thefatman ,

Your poor attempt in deception has been noted. You want ibn kathir? No issues lets go to ibn kathir.

From you
'..This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, DEMANDED his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. WE MADE A CONDITION ON OURSELVES that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of..'

The christians made the conditions and imposed it upon themselves. The pact was signed between Caliph Umar(ra) and the christians. Nobody forced them to do that. Upon signature of course the counterparty will DEMAND the conditions be met.

You christians made and imposed the conditions upon yourselves and now you complain? This is similar to you admitting that you are a dog and when others call you a dog , you went ballistics.

I am still waiting for you rcomments on the church doctrine of perpetual servitude.

The Fat Man said...

Sam1528

So just to be clear, you are no longer arguing that the Pact of Umar is a fabrication. Instead now you are arguing that it was Christains who made up the pact of Umar and imposed it on themselves?

Second I dont now what you are talking about "I went balistic" Sir I'm the one who said over and over again I am a Dog and I am greatful for the crumbs that fall from the table. I don't understand how you could consider this to be going 'balastic"

And Finaly I have no idea on what this is.

"I am still waiting for you rcomments on the church doctrine of perpetual servitude."

If this is a Catholic dogma I should tell you I am a protestant Baptist with strong leanings twords Calvanism. So asking me about Catholic Dogma would be like me asking you about Shia or Ahmadeians

sam1528 said...

thefatman ,

From you ,
'..Now lets go to what the Shaffi school of Islamic Jurisprudance says on the treatment of Dihimi's..'

Why not? According to the evidence provided , the christians made up and imposed such conditions upon themselves. The christians insisted on such conditions and signed up on it. Nobody forced them to sign. Too bad , a contract is a contract. Why can't the Islamic Jurisprudance use such documents that have been signed by both parties making it a valid contract.

Christians willingly made up such conditions and imposed it willingly upon themselves. Now you complain?

Like I stated , I have no issues either way. Even though the 'Pact of Umar(ra)' has been proven a forgery , the evidence shows that its the christians who made up the conditions and willingly imposed it upon themselves. Now you complain?

There is no strawman except you trying to find a way out for something that christians made up and imposed upon themselves.

How many christians in Riyadh? 10? 20? Do you need a church building? Church = congregation isn't it? Can't the christians congregate in their homes?

Awaiting your comments on the church doctrine of perpetual servitude.

sam1528 said...

thefatman ,

Like I stated earlier , I am ok either way. No issues with me.

We have shown that the so called 'Pact of Umar(ra)' with the restrictive conditions was a forgery. You still insist on it. No problems for muslims but it create problems for you christians. If you carefully read Ibn Kathir's commentary , its the christians who made up and imposed such conditions.

Simple question. Why are you complaining?

Don't you regard catholics as christians? After all they came first. Whats your comment on the church doctrine of perpetual servitude?

WomanForTruth101 said...

fatman please visit the link I provided. There's other scholar's on there as well.
Here's another link that talks about the Pact: http://www.livingislam.org/m/udhm_e.html

Sorry I should've given the first name it's Maher. He's a lecturer at a UK university: http://us.macmillan.com/author/maherabumunshar

http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=25939&lan=en&sid=1&sp=1&isNew=0

The Fat Man said...

sam1528 said...

"We have shown that the so called 'Pact of Umar(ra)' with the restrictive conditions was a forgery. You still insist on it. No problems for muslims but it create problems for you christians. If you carefully read Ibn Kathir's commentary , its the christians who made up and imposed such conditions."

I don't know how quoting from Western Orinaltists and WomanofTruth use of some modern Muslim scholar which until now I and others have not heard of including muslims, constitutes proving the pact of umar is a fake.

How can it be a fake sir if Ibn Kathir sites it, how can it be a fake if the Shaffi school as well as the Hanifi school user parts of it?

Now on to your other nonsense.
Putting aside the fact that Ibn Kathir says Umar DEMANDED this of the Christians.

Christians were sitting around one day thinking they had to much freedom. They didn't want to build new Churches, they didn't want to repair old Churches. They wanted to give up there seats to Muslims, they also wanted to wear a yellow sash, also they wanted to give up there weapons, put Muslim travelers up for three days and three nights, and lets not forget they didn't want to be heard worshiping, they also don't want to display crucifixes or even be heard during funeral prosesion. Church bells oh to Christians those are just a annoyance get rid of those. Let's not forget walking in the alleys or gutters, why does a Christian need to walk down the street anyway. And of course they also did not want to ride draft animals.

Yeah Christians in 7th century Palestine wanted to voluntarily impose these restrictions on themselves.

Yeah that makes sense IN WHAT UNIVERSE?

As far as your other question. As I said before I have no idea what it is so I can not comment on it. But I do make note that you have now moved on to phase 3 of the Muslim argumentation.

The Fat Man said...

Womanoftruth

I have looked over your use of this "Modern Muslim (cough cough) Scholar."

All I can say is that's great you follow this Islamic "Feeling". others however DON"T

So you disregard Ibn Kathir, the Shaffi and Hannif school of Islamic Jurisprudence. Tell me what about those that don't through these scholars under the buss. Please answer my questions.

Should I fear the Islamic "feeling" that teaches what Ibn Kathir and the Shaffi school of islamic thought teach on the treatment of Dihimmi's?

Would you Muslims living in the west want to live under such conditions?

And finally

So I can be Killed, Sold into slavery or ransomed off in exchange for a Muslim Prisoner of war.

Muslims do you think that is fair treatment for breaking any of the "Dihimitude laws"?

The Fat Man said...

Sam1528 WOW, you argue that the pact is a fake, but its not because the Christians made the conditions on themselves. But it has still been proven to be a fake?

"And the Wheels on the buss go round and round, round and round round and round"

Ibn said...

Fatman's posts are riddled with fallacies. For example, "How can it be a fake sir if Ibn Kathir sites it, how can it be a fake if the Shaffi school as well as the Hanifi school user parts of it?"

This is question begging since it presupposes that anything Ibn Kathir cites (not "sites" you illiterate doofus, get the spelling right!) or the Hanafi school uses is necessarily authentic.

Here's more. "Should I fear the Islamic "feeling" that teaches what Ibn Kathir and the Shaffi school of islamic thought teach on the treatment of Dihimmi's? Would you Muslims living in the west want to live under such conditions?"

This is a combination of question begging and an ad hominem circumstantial. Question begging, because it presupposes that there has to be a school in Islam that ought to be feared. And ad hominem circumstantial for the following line of reasoning: "Would you Muslims living in the West want to live under such conditions? If not, then how can you endorse the pact of Umar?"

So Fatman is not only bad at spelling, he also doesn't know how to logically argue. That's what you get for being under the tutelage of that violent convict Wood and the psychotic Nabeel Querishi.

God these Islamophobes are brainwashed!

The Fat Man said...

IBN

Thanks again for correcting my spelling.

But once again you fail to answer the question.

Ok for arguments sake I agree with you that your flavor, your feeling of Islam is all peace and love and happiness.

However as you pointed out that Islam is not a Monolith. So others do not believe in your flavor "feeling" of Islam.

They actually follow The Shaffi, Haniff school of Islamic Jurisprudence, as well as Ibn Kathir.

So tell me should I FEAR THESE MUSLIMS?

Ibn said...

ManFat: So tell me should I FEAR THESE MUSLIMS?

Good Lord Almighty! I just pointed out that that's question begging!

The Fat Man said...

Ibn

Why are you running from these questoins?

Let me put it to you this way. If yuo brought up some laws from the Middle ages that dealt with blasphemy and burnning withces at the stake and asked me "Should I fear these laws"

I WOULD ANSWER YES YOU SHOULD FEAR THEM AS I DO.

See that wasnt hard.

So how is this a fallacy.

There are Muslims who follow Ibn Kathir, you dont or at least you dismiss his commentary on Surah 9:29. Ok that's great your a peaceful hipy Muslim.

There are Muslims who follow the Shafi and Hanif School of Islamic Jurisprudence. You don't thats great but there are Muslims who do.

So the question is Should I fear these Muslims who follow these Islamic teachings even if you don't?

Ibn said...

FatMan's ramblings remind be of Abraham Simpson.

The Fat Man said...

Ibn

Wow why are you so afraid to answer the question, why do you continue with these ad homeniums (please correct my spelling again)

Ok let me make it simple for you.

The Shaffi school of Islamic Jurisprudence states that Dhimni's (those in protective status) are of the following.

011.1 A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:
(1) Jews;
(2) Christians;
(3) Zoroastrians;
(4) Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of
Judaism and Christianity;
(5) and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be
blessings and peace).

First Question,
Does your "feeling" of Islam agree with that?

The Fat Man said...

Ibn (Continued)

The Shaffi School also teaches that Dihmi's are to follow these rules.

o11.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and
indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:
(1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;
(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
(3) are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";
(4) must keep to the side of the street;
(5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house,
it is not razed;
(6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite
the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
(7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

Second Question

Does your flavor "feeling" of Islam
agree that this is how Dhimi's are to be treated?

I am not presupposing anything I am honestly asking a question do you agree or disagree with this on how Dihmimi's are to be treated.

Please feel free to correct any spelling mistakes. Thanks again

Ibn said...

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something."

The Fat Man said...

Ibn

So you refuse to answer question. So sad you are so ashamed of your religion.

sam1528 said...

thefatman ,

You should change your nick to 'thefunnyman'.

You have been ducking and weaving trying to avoid the the reality with regards to the 'Pact of Umar(ra)'

Lets try again. My stand is that the so called 'Pact of Umar(ra) is a forgery. However for the sake of argument , lets consider it 'the real deal'

Why are you still making so much fuss about me stating its a forgery? I already told you that I am prepared to discuss about it as if its genuine.

You cite the Tafseer of Ibn Kathir (we are not talking about any orientalist / western scholars. This is from you
'..Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, DEMANDED his well-known conditions be met by the Christians,..'
'..When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. WE MADE A CONDITION ON OURSELVES that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk..'

It is very clear , the christians made the conditions and imposed it upon themselves. In other words , the christians goofed up in their contract negotiations. They voluntarily imposed such conditions on themselves and signed the agreement. Caliph Umar(ra) did not do anything wrong. He DEMANDED the conditions per the points of agreement of the contract / agreement be met by the christians after the contract has been signed / sealed.

The crux of the issue is the christians goofed up badly in their negotiations. Why complain? Its the problem of the christians not muslims.

You want to focus on Ibn Kathir but when it has been proven that it was the christians who imposed the restrictive conditions upon themselves , 'WE MADE A CONDITION ON OURSELVES' , you cannot and don't want to accept the facts.

The evidence from the source that you insisted on using shows that it was the christians who groofed up in their negotiation in 'The Pact of Umar(ra)' , you then turn around and refuse to accept the facts. You are one funny person.

Still not wanting to comment of the church doctrine of perpetual servitude I see.

sam1528 said...

thefatman,

From you ,
'..Sam1528 WOW, you argue that the pact is a fake, but its not because the Christians made the conditions on themselves. But it has still been proven to be a fake?..'

You are one funny person. This is what I said '..Like I stated earlier , I am ok either way. No issues with me..'

I stated that the 'The Pact of Umar(ra)' was / is a fake. However I am willing to discuss about it as if its authentic.

Looks like you are running around in circles beating around the bush.

You insisted on Tafseer Ibn Kathir. No problems with me. The evidence from the tafseer confirm that it was the christians who made up such restrictive conditions and imposed it upon themselves. You somehow or rather cannot accept it. Hey , we are discussing based on the document you insisted on using.

Based on the evidence (the document that you insisted on using) the christians goofed up badly in their negotiations , you cannot accept the facts.

Too bad dude ... you can't change historical evidence. Don't you wish you could?

The Fat Man said...

Well it looks like IBN through in the towel. Sam1528 is now arguing in favor or Christians imposing this on themselves voluntarily. Yeah like that makes sense since Ibn Kathir says Umar "DEMANDED" of the Christians. If something is Demanded it can not be voluntary.

So what about you Womanoftruth or even you Sam1528 can you answer my questions.

Ibn said...

Ibn: Banana is yellow.

Fatman: Banana is red

The Fat Man said...

Ibn you have been weighed you have been measured and you have been found wanting.

So that leaves Womanoftruth and possibly Sam1528, not even going to bother with Yahya Snow.

So you two care to answer my questions or are you going to throw in the towel like IBN?

Yahya Snow said...

@Jeff, (previously known as "Fatman")

Brother Jeff, are you not a Christian? I'm sure you have been claiming to be a Christian.

Now, I'm calling youto consistency. You are worried about what Shafi scholars deemed to be a satisfactory way of residing with non-Muslims? Why are you so concerned about whether they were allowed to openly eat pork and drink wine or not?

Firstly, I would like to state eating pork is a health risk (a quite substantive risk during those times), as for alcohol, we BOTH know alcohol is a risk factor for cancer! (you SHOULD know this if you read my response to Shamoun's shoddy response to Nadir's alcohol argument)

So, Jeff, I am telling you to get your priorities straight and show a bite of consistency!

YOU believe your 3in1 gd sent Moses to KILL a group of ppl. Now, being forbidden to eat prok inpublic is insiginifcant in comparison, right?

Jeff, how about if you are a gay (I know you are not):

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Now, Jeff, Mulims are not accepting of gays so lets move onto another one. What about those who strike their fathers?

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Are you still concerned about the attire of non-Muslims living in Muslim lands in the past? You are looking rather silly now, aren't you, Jeff?

Here is another one, killing non-believers, Jeff...let's hope the fundamentalist crowd you hang with does not get in power:

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Are you seriously telling me you are worried about what non-Muslims wore in the past and whether they were allowed to get drunk and poison their livers in public or not? I guess you are rather fond of this cancer risk factor. Jeff seen as you are such a fan of prok...what about Jesus who sent devils into pigs according to your NT? (see Mark 5:12-13)

Now, Jeff may say; Yahya, that was in the past...OK, Jeff. Do you NOT believe you and your man-god will destroy disbelievers in the future?

Now, now, Jeff...why am I not on christian forums asking about how Trinitarians will treat me near the end times...I will tell you, because I know their eschatology is skewed and Muslims are the people who will be allied with Jesus...thus I have no real regard for your eschatology (except an academic regard)

Why are you worried about sharia...is it becasue in your heart you are worried the Muslims are right and Trinitarianism has no basis at all.

Have a searched for a fellow named Dr Jerald Dirks...and listen to him

Peace and LOVE

The Fat Man said...

Wilbur Wilbur Wilbur

First lets take a look here at what the Shaffi school says.

(1) are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;
(2) are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
(3) are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";
(4) must keep to the side of the street;
(5) may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house,
it is not razed;
(6) are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite
the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
(7) and are forbidden to build new churches.

Although point 6 is a concern for the fact it says "A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite
the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;" The part about pork is the least of my worries.

Points 2,4,5 and 7 as well as well as the part about reading the Torah and NT out loud in point 6 are my main concern.

So WILBUR should I fear those points from Muslims who wish to practice that as part of Sharia Law?

The Fat Man said...

Wilbur Wilbur Wilbur

As far as your points of going over the OT law. THANK GOD CHRIST MADE RIGHTEOUS FROM THE LAW.

Yes I do not live under that LAW sir, I live under the faith in Christ.

So yes I would fear as you should fear anyone who would want to impose this law on mankind.

The Fat Man said...

Sam1528 I finally looked up " church doctrine of perpetual servitude" And I believe I already answered that in a previous post dated 22 October 2010 14:54.

"Let me put it to you this way. If yuo brought up some laws from the Middle ages that dealt with blasphemy and burnning withces at the stake and asked me "Should I fear these laws"

I WOULD ANSWER YES YOU SHOULD FEAR THEM AS I DO."

So yes I would oppose anything like the doctrine of perpetual servitude, and yes I would fear it as should you.

sam1528 said...

thefatman ,

This is so funny.

From you '..Sam1528 is now arguing in favor or Christians imposing this on themselves voluntarily. Yeah like that makes sense since Ibn Kathir says Umar "DEMANDED" of the Christians. If something is Demanded it can not be voluntary..'

Hmm , you have totally disregarded what I stated. I can understand , 2cor12:16 comes to mind.

From you , excerpts from Ibn Kathir
'..This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. WE MADE A CONDITION ON OURSELVES that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery..'

The christians goofed up in their negotiations , made up and imposed such upon themselves then sign / sealed the contract.

Caliph Umar(ra) only added (from you again ;
'..`Umar, he added to it, `We will not beat any Muslim..'

Of course Caliph Umar(ra)DEMANDED his well-known conditions be met by the Christians. The christians already goofed up and sign upon it. Why should Caliph Umar(ra) NOT DEMAND for the Points Of Agreement of the already signed / sealed contract?

A pattern is emerging here. You are ducking and weaving hoping for the last word which you think makes your argument truthful.

sam1528 said...

thefatman ,

TQ for admitting that you 'fear' the laws in the church 'doctrine of perpetual servitude'.

Its ironic
(1) the 'Pact of Umar(ra)' has its conditions made up and imposed by the christians themselves. You cry foul even though its very clear the christians goofed up in the negotiations for the Points Of Agreement
(2) the church has been practicing the 'doctrine of perpetual servitude' but no condemnation from you just 'fear'.

Your double standards is extremely glaring.

manny said...

this usama dakdouk man is crazy

Anonymous said...

St. Luke’s Lutheran Church
PRESENTS
Usama K. Dakdok
Muslim Evangelism Specialist
The Straight Way of Grace Ministry,
Inc.
http://www.thestraightway.org
What is the truth behind what the media and the moderate Muslims are telling us?
Why is Islam growing in America and the world?
Can Allah be God? Who is Jesus in the Qur’an?
Is Mohammed a true prophet? Does the Qur’an teach that Jesus died on the cross?
Can the Qur’an be understood without reading the Bible?
Can the Qur’an be God’s Word? What does the Qur’an teach about terrorism?
 What is the Hadith?
Revealing theTruth About Islam
Our foundational presentation.
This seminar provides a broad overview of the history, the teachings, and the current condition/goals of Islam in the world.
Join us in understanding what the Muslims believe and how to point them to Christ
Or how to confront them with their Own Qur’an
St. Luke’s Lutheran Church
2021 W. State Road 426
Oviedo, FL 32765
407- 365-3408
January 6, 2011
7:00 pm
Rooms A & B
Pastor Usama K. Dakdok was born in Egypt and raised in a Christian home as the son of a Baptist pastor. He became a Christian at the age of eleven. Usama learned about Islam in school because it was,and still is, a mandatory subject.To further his knowledge of Islam, he studied Islamic law in college. Usama came to the United States in
1992 after his marriage to Vicki, an American whom he met in Germany, where they were both in a full-time ministry. In 1997 they were blessed with a son, Caleb. Usama holds a Bachelor's Degree in Theology and a master's Degree in Missiology from New
Orleans Baptist Theological Seminar

Anonymous said...

I'm not a Muslim, but even I could destroy him in an argument. Some people would rather be loud and blind than see what's in front of them.